Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262699AbTHaVTK (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:19:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262708AbTHaVTK (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:19:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:39885 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262699AbTHaVTH (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:19:07 -0400 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:18:55 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , Pascal Schmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: bandwidth for bkbits.net (good news) Message-ID: <20030831211855.GB12752@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Andrea Arcangeli , Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , Pascal Schmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20030831013928.GN24409@dualathlon.random> <20030831025659.GA18767@work.bitmover.com> <1062335711.31351.44.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030831144505.GS24409@dualathlon.random> <1062343891.10323.12.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030831154450.GV24409@dualathlon.random> <20030831162243.GC18767@work.bitmover.com> <20030831163350.GY24409@dualathlon.random> <20030831164802.GA12752@work.bitmover.com> <20030831170633.GA24409@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030831170633.GA24409@dualathlon.random> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=0.5, required 7, AWL, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 25 On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 07:06:33PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:48:02AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > works when we've tried what you said to try isn't very compelling. I know > > this doesn't work from both theory and practice. > > Post your configure scripts so we can point you what you did wrong. They are Cisco configuration, it won't do you much good. All the traffic goes in/out through a Cisco 2610, we have a full T1 and we clamped all TCP traffic at .75Mbit. Still didn't help even though we verified that it was indeed clamping down on the traffic. I'm not sure why you are arguing this, if you have a fat pipe feeding into a small pipe and you are trying to throttle at far end of the small pipe isn't it obvious that you can't make that work? It's not the packets we send, it's the packets you send. And all the flow control stuff is per connection, not per pipe. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/